An app in iOS called Grocery Gadgets was sold to Pingwell by the original owners and creators of the app. I had previously subscribed for $0.99 per year to pay for the app and also had, when offered the opportunity by the founding company, paid for a PRO version of the app which was promised to be ad-free. Pingwell after purchasing the app decided unilaterally with no attempt at informing or consulting the apps users to created an new upgrade version of the which carries advertising and at the same time pulled a rabbi out of the hat with a new subscription "option" costing $19.99 per year to eliminate the ads, which I had previously eliminated by purchasing the PRO license from the previous owners of the app. As far as I know, Pingwell does not have the legal right to impose new conditions on a lifetime licensee of the app without their permission. At the very least Pingwell was obligated to offer for those users refusing the new subscription "option" to maintain the last ad-free version for our exclusive use for lifetime. Instead, with a figurative gun to our heads Pingwell decided to act unilaterally and change retroactively the terms of my software license for Grocery Gadgets. I would be willing to pay up to $8 per year for such a subscription to support the app and its continuing development, but not $20 per year.
In late spring 2016, a company by the name of Pingwell acquired Flixoft who had a popular and powerful app enjoyed by many called Grocery Gadgets. I paid $5.39 for the ad free version of Grocery Gadgets, called Grocery Gadgets Pro on July 29, 2009 from the iTunes app store.
In 2016, Pingwell sent out an update that claimed to have bug fixes for the app. An entirely new app was placed on my iPone which has ads and requires me to pay a monthy subscription to keep the app - I already paid for - ad free! This was done without informed consent. Numerous complaints were made by patrons like myself (go to grocerygadgets.zendesk.com to see for yourself the gross number of cheated patrons).
The company's CEO and other management told us it was a hard decision for them to make but they had to in order to keep up with the improvements. I, and many others of us contested we wanted our old, non-updated, ad-free app we paid for back without any future fixes. The management recanted with the same response from all levels of management:
CEO Timothy Sears' response November 26, 2016 13:43:Thanks for your email. We certainly appreciate your ongoing use of the app. We put the ads in in order to keep the app running. Is it better to keep it running or shut it down? Should we treat all our users the same or treat some differently? Is this a business decision or an ethical one? We thought about all these things as we reluctantly made the decision. I hope you can understand our choices even if they represent an undesired outcome.
Grocery Gadget Support, Sep 2, 07:30 PDT: In order to enable Grocery Gadget with continued improvements and customer support, we have had to add ads and subscriptions. We hope you understand and keep on using Grocery Gadget. Have a great day! Best regards, Customer Service.
What merchant gets to sell you something, and gets the autonomy to force you to pay for that item monthly? This app revolutionized my shopping experiences to always be productive and pleasant. I love this app. How is this even legal? I just want the old ad free app I paid for back. If the company is so hard up for money request a nominal fee to those who already paid to keep the add alive, and charge only Pingwell's new customers the subscription rates. Duhh. Mr. Timothy Sears questioned, "Should we treat all our users the same or treat some differently?" YES you should treat users who pay different from those who have not. Is he touched in the head? If not, his logic is.
The acid to the wound was when I replaced the ad-full, subscription version of this app with an old back up of the original one I had my computer (external hard drive). Two days later my reinstalled old, ad-free version (Grocery Gadgets 4.3) was replaced with the ad-full subscription version (Grocery Gadgets 5.0) one. As a single mom I do not have the resources to open a class action suit for a $5.39 app. If I did, this would surely be the one worth doing it for.
PINGWELL, hopefully your car dealer won't repossess your paid automobile, and require you to lease it from them henceforth to keep it, as you have done to us loyal patrons who love the Grocery Gadgets app.Please reconsider your stance to those of us who have paid already. If you need money, fraud and deception is not a good way to go about getting it. You will reap what you sew in one way or an other.
Pingwell Reviews
An app in iOS called Grocery Gadgets was sold to Pingwell by the original owners and creators of the app. I had previously subscribed for $0.99 per year to pay for the app and also had, when offered the opportunity by the founding company, paid for a PRO version of the app which was promised to be ad-free. Pingwell after purchasing the app decided unilaterally with no attempt at informing or consulting the apps users to created an new upgrade version of the which carries advertising and at the same time pulled a rabbi out of the hat with a new subscription "option" costing $19.99 per year to eliminate the ads, which I had previously eliminated by purchasing the PRO license from the previous owners of the app. As far as I know, Pingwell does not have the legal right to impose new conditions on a lifetime licensee of the app without their permission. At the very least Pingwell was obligated to offer for those users refusing the new subscription "option" to maintain the last ad-free version for our exclusive use for lifetime. Instead, with a figurative gun to our heads Pingwell decided to act unilaterally and change retroactively the terms of my software license for Grocery Gadgets. I would be willing to pay up to $8 per year for such a subscription to support the app and its continuing development, but not $20 per year.
In late spring 2016, a company by the name of Pingwell acquired Flixoft who had a popular and powerful app enjoyed by many called Grocery Gadgets. I paid $5.39 for the ad free version of Grocery Gadgets, called Grocery Gadgets Pro on July 29, 2009 from the iTunes app store.
In 2016, Pingwell sent out an update that claimed to have bug fixes for the app. An entirely new app was placed on my iPone which has ads and requires me to pay a monthy subscription to keep the app - I already paid for - ad free! This was done without informed consent. Numerous complaints were made by patrons like myself (go to grocerygadgets.zendesk.com to see for yourself the gross number of cheated patrons).
The company's CEO and other management told us it was a hard decision for them to make but they had to in order to keep up with the improvements. I, and many others of us contested we wanted our old, non-updated, ad-free app we paid for back without any future fixes. The management recanted with the same response from all levels of management:
CEO Timothy Sears' response November 26, 2016 13:43:Thanks for your email. We certainly appreciate your ongoing use of the app. We put the ads in in order to keep the app running. Is it better to keep it running or shut it down? Should we treat all our users the same or treat some differently? Is this a business decision or an ethical one? We thought about all these things as we reluctantly made the decision. I hope you can understand our choices even if they represent an undesired outcome.
Grocery Gadget Support, Sep 2, 07:30 PDT: In order to enable Grocery Gadget with continued improvements and customer support, we have had to add ads and subscriptions. We hope you understand and keep on using Grocery Gadget. Have a great day! Best regards, Customer Service.
What merchant gets to sell you something, and gets the autonomy to force you to pay for that item monthly? This app revolutionized my shopping experiences to always be productive and pleasant. I love this app. How is this even legal? I just want the old ad free app I paid for back. If the company is so hard up for money request a nominal fee to those who already paid to keep the add alive, and charge only Pingwell's new customers the subscription rates. Duhh. Mr. Timothy Sears questioned, "Should we treat all our users the same or treat some differently?" YES you should treat users who pay different from those who have not. Is he touched in the head? If not, his logic is.
The acid to the wound was when I replaced the ad-full, subscription version of this app with an old back up of the original one I had my computer (external hard drive). Two days later my reinstalled old, ad-free version (Grocery Gadgets 4.3) was replaced with the ad-full subscription version (Grocery Gadgets 5.0) one. As a single mom I do not have the resources to open a class action suit for a $5.39 app. If I did, this would surely be the one worth doing it for.
PINGWELL, hopefully your car dealer won't repossess your paid automobile, and require you to lease it from them henceforth to keep it, as you have done to us loyal patrons who love the Grocery Gadgets app.Please reconsider your stance to those of us who have paid already. If you need money, fraud and deception is not a good way to go about getting it. You will reap what you sew in one way or an other.